- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I like the IP discussion. It stimulates decent debate on this board.......
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:02 am
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:02 am
The problem I have with being 100% against IP is, I can't imagine how that would not reduce innovation on many fronts. Sure, it might encourage innovation on some fronts. I can't deny that. But, there is simply no denying that there are many innovations that have come largely from people motivated by the potential for personal gain.
Absent IP, I think it is impossible to argue that some of that would not disappear. Libertarians typically recognize the fact that when one removes personal gain from the equation, it affects human behavior. They recognize it on a variety of fronts. Yet, some libertarians seem to dismiss this as insignificant when it comes to IP.
The reality to me is that elimination of IP would have benefits in some quarters and stifling effects in others. And, the difficult part for me is figuring out which of those two would be larger.
Absent IP, I think it is impossible to argue that some of that would not disappear. Libertarians typically recognize the fact that when one removes personal gain from the equation, it affects human behavior. They recognize it on a variety of fronts. Yet, some libertarians seem to dismiss this as insignificant when it comes to IP.
The reality to me is that elimination of IP would have benefits in some quarters and stifling effects in others. And, the difficult part for me is figuring out which of those two would be larger.
4
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:04 am to ShortyRob
IP=Intellectual property?
Call me dumb if you must but I really don't know.
Call me dumb if you must but I really don't know.
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:21 am to ShortyRob
Yeah, the whole idea that there should be no IP is very stupid. Why would companies spend money to research new technology if after they discover/invent something new some other company can just copy their work?
That company would then have a lot further to go just to break even from all of the money they spent researching while the other company who simply copied them is starting in the black.
That company would then have a lot further to go just to break even from all of the money they spent researching while the other company who simply copied them is starting in the black.
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:37 am to ShortyRob
Missed it. Tesla thread, I'm guessing?
Pretty much my stance. I do believe that we fall way too far right now on the side of patent holders though. would not support removing IP totally, though
quote:
The reality to me is that elimination of IP would have benefits in some quarters and stifling effects in others.
Pretty much my stance. I do believe that we fall way too far right now on the side of patent holders though. would not support removing IP totally, though
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:43 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Yeah, the whole idea that there should be no IP is very stupid.
Agree.
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:48 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
That company would then have a lot further to go just to break even from all of the money they spent researching while the other company who simply copied them is starting in the black.
This is my big one. Innovation can be:
1 Cheap to invent, cheap to copy
2 Expensive to invent but pretty expensive to copy
3 Expensive to invent but cheap to copy.
Seems to me, absent IP, category 3 goes away. You'd bankrupt yourself spending tons to invent shite only to have other people use it for THEIR profit because they don't have to make up R&D costs.
Posted on 6/13/14 at 7:58 am to ShortyRob
Teams is just doing this as a stunt to cover their arse, imo
They have done nothing wrong, but their business model was crushed in big areas.
It's hard to imagine what they are trying to accomplish. It's almost illegal because as CEO of a company, your #1 goal is to increase the value of shares of investors. This is basically sabotaging that.
Admittingly, I haven't read up entirely on what is happening internally with Tesla.
Microsoft used this approach, but by doing so, they actually improves their product (windows) and increased sales.
This teams move is just nuts.
How's the stock doing today?
They have done nothing wrong, but their business model was crushed in big areas.
It's hard to imagine what they are trying to accomplish. It's almost illegal because as CEO of a company, your #1 goal is to increase the value of shares of investors. This is basically sabotaging that.
Admittingly, I haven't read up entirely on what is happening internally with Tesla.
Microsoft used this approach, but by doing so, they actually improves their product (windows) and increased sales.
This teams move is just nuts.
How's the stock doing today?
Posted on 6/13/14 at 1:13 pm to ShortyRob
Really? Not a single anti-IP response to this thread? Well shite. I thought we might have some interesting conversation. 
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News